DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: A cross-sectional analysis of adult (≥ 18 years) current smokers and ex-smokers from 14 countries participating in the ITC Project. Data from the most recent survey questionnaire for each country were included, which spanned the period 2013-17. Countries were categorized into four groups based on regulations governing NVP sales and marketing (allowable or not), and level of enforcement (strict or weak where NVPs are not permitted to be sold): (1) most restrictive policies (MRPs), not legal to be sold or marketed with strict enforcement: Australia, Brazil, Uruguay; (2) restrictive policies (RPs), not approved for sale or marketing with weak enforcement: Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand; (3) less restrictive policies (LRPs), legal to be sold and marketed with regulations: England, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, United States; and (4) no regulatory policies (NRPs), Bangladesh, China, Zambia. Countries were also grouped by World Bank Income Classifications. Country-specific weighted logistic regression models estimated adjusted NVP prevalence estimates for: awareness, ever/current use, and frequency of use (daily versus non-daily).
FINDINGS: NVP awareness and use were lowest in NRP countries. Generally, ever- and current use of NVPs were lower in MRP countries (ever-use = 7.1-48.9%; current use = 0.3-3.5%) relative to LRP countries (ever-use = 38.9-66.6%; current use = 5.5-17.2%) and RP countries (ever-use = 10.0-62.4%; current use = 1.4-15.5%). NVP use was highest among high-income countries, followed by upper-middle-income countries, and then by lower-middle-income countries.
CONCLUSIONS: With a few exceptions, awareness and use of nicotine vaping products varied by the strength of national regulations governing nicotine vaping product sales/marketing, and by country income. In countries with no regulatory policies, use rates were very low, suggesting that there was little availability, marketing and/or interest in nicotine vaping products in these countries where smoking populations are predominantly poorer. The higher awareness and use of nicotine vaping products in high income countries with moderately (e.g. Canada, New Zealand) and less (e.g. England, United States) restrictive policies, is likely due to the greater availability and affordability of nicotine vaping products.
OBJECTIVE: Given this information, this study systematically explores what risk factors may be associated with ADRD in Indigenous populations.
METHODS: A search of all published literature was conducted in October 2016, March 2018, and July 2019 using Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO. Subject headings explored were inclusive of all terms related to Indigenous persons, dementia, and risk. All relevant words, phrases, and combinations were used. To be included in this systematic review, articles had to display an association of a risk factor and ADRD. Only studies that reported a quantifiable measure of risk, involved human subjects, and were published in English were included.
RESULTS: Of 237 articles originally identified through database searches, 45 were duplicates and 179 did not meet a priori inclusion criteria, resulting in 13 studies eligible for inclusion in this systematic review.
CONCLUSION: The large number of potentially modifiable risk factors reported relative to non-modifiable risk factors illustrates the importance of socioeconomic context in the pathogenesis of ADRD in Indigenous populations. The tendency to prioritize genetic over social explanations when encountering disproportionately high disease rates in Indigenous populations can distract from modifiable proximal, intermediate, and distal determinants of health.
METHODS: This was a planned sub-study of patients with an ED diagnosis of AECOPD identified in the Asia, Australia and New Zealand Dyspnoea in Emergency Departments (AANZDEM) study. The AANZDEM was a prospective, interrupted time series cohort study conducted in 46 ED in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia over three 72-h periods in May, August and October 2014. Primary outcomes were patient epidemiology, clinical features, treatment and outcomes (hospital length of stay (LOS) and mortality).
RESULTS: Forty-six ED participated. There were 415 patients with an ED primary diagnosis of AECOPD (13.6% of the overall cohort; 95% CI: 12.5-14.9%). Median age was 73 years, 60% males and 65% arrived by ambulance. Ninety-one percent had an existing COPD diagnosis. Eighty percent of patients received inhaled bronchodilators, 66% received systemic corticosteroids and 57% of those with pH < 7.30 were treated with non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Seventy-eight percent of patients were admitted to hospital, 7% to an intensive care unit. In-hospital mortality was 4% and median LOS was 4 days (95% CI: 2-7).
CONCLUSION: Patients treated in ED for AECOPD commonly arrive by ambulance, have a high admission rate and significant in-hospital mortality. Compliance with evidence-based treatments in ED is suboptimal affording an opportunity to improve care and potentially outcomes.